General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLike it or not, the Supreme Court WILL decide the presidential election...
...either by refusing to hear the Trump team's case, or by agreeing to hear it and either ruling for or against them. There's no way to avoid it.
And that's a problem. Because, even if the best-case scenario plays out, it will only mean that, when presented with an evidence-free partisan case, the impulse to "do the right thing" won out over the temptation to decide solely on the basis of the Court majority's political advantage...this time.
Eventually, that impulse won't win out. (In fact, it's at least slightly possible it might not win out this time.)
And, as long as we have the current Supreme Court setup, that's going to be a ticking time bomb for our democracy. The question iisn't "will it go off?"...it's "when will it go off?"
a kennedy
(29,661 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Trump is appealing the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The SCOTUS now has the right to decide whether to hear the case or not.
This time, I suspect that the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case, but who knows? The ball is in their court.
-Laelth
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)No case is before the Court until it grants certiorari.
c-rational
(2,593 posts)regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)Sure, under current legal principles, they can't review the case. And, if they decide they can't review the case, then those principles remain. But, if four of the current Justices decide to grant cert, they have essentially created a new legal principle that says they can. They have all the power to do so or not, only constrained by their own sense of right and wrong. Now, it may happen that said sense will cause them to uphold the previous principle. But, if not, to whom are you going to appeal a SCOTUS decision? They're the court of final appeal.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)If thats the stated reason that the SCOTUS advances to decline to hear the case, fine. That might be the easiest argument to make.
-Laelth
helpisontheway
(5,008 posts)So you are saying that they would be disenfranchise millions of people over several states?
Laelth
(32,017 posts)The SCOTUS has every right to review a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania if they are asked to do so. Trump is asking them to do so. The SCOTUS may or may not choose to hear the case, but Trump is going to put the ball in their Court.
We shall see what we see.
-Laelth
blitzen
(4,572 posts)The decision was based on some procedural question and it is absolutely not possible that it can go to the SCOTUS
helpisontheway
(5,008 posts)regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)Otherwise, if they grant cert for the case, what are you going to do? Point out to them that Prof. Tribe concluded it isn't possible and tell them they can't hear it? Appeal it to a higher court?
Here's the basic unpleasant fact about our judicial system: a SCOTUS majority can do whatever it wants. If procedures dictate they shouldn't be able to do something, and they want to do it anyway, they can simply establish new binding precedent allowing them to do it, and the only real option to prevent it is all-out revolution.
c-rational
(2,593 posts)jrthin
(4,836 posts)Disaffected
(4,554 posts)I wish all these armchair lawyers would stop with the ill informed opinionating.
BannonsLiver
(16,387 posts)The two posters who think they know more than Tribe.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)to the Supreme Court
1) If a State Supreme Court decides an issue that is relevant only to a State Constitution with relevant nexus to a US Constitution issue there would be no basis to appeal
2) If an Appeals Court ruled that the form of the case lacked a legal basis then you could not appeal it to the USSC..
3) If the Appeals Court rules that the people who brought the suit had no standing to file, I don't believe that can be appealed.
An example of the first would be if the Washington State Legislature passed a tax on income that the WA SC found violated the state constitution prohibition on income tax there would be no basis for a SC review.
An example of the second would be if there was a law requiring a civil claim to be filed in 3 years and the Appeals Court finds as a matter of fact that the claim was made 5 years after the fact then there wouldn't be an reversible issue to appeal.
Tribe is arguing that the way the Appeals Court ruled it didn't allow for an appeal.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)...if said SCOTUS wants to hear it.
Sure, we can hope they won't this time, but there's no certainty -- and even less certainty that a future Court won't do so.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Every court has its area of jurisdiction and the Supreme Court is no different. The Supreme Court is only the final court on issues that pertain to federal law
The United States Supreme Court is a federal court, meaning in part that it can hear cases prosecuted by the U.S. government. (The Court also decides civil cases.) The Court can also hear just about any kind of state-court case, as long as it involves federal law, including the Constitution.
If an issue is only relevant to a state constitution and does not involve any federal statute or constitutional issue then it cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Example
WA Constitution prohibits an income tax. WA state legislature passes a state income tax. WA Supreme Court rules income tax unconstitutional. No federal laws or US Constitutional issues involved, it cannot be appealed to the US SC for them to rule on whether or not the law is or is not constitutional under the state constitution.
Laurence Tribe is a Harvard Professor of Law, founder of the American Constitution Society and has appeared before the SC 36 times.
He states that there are no federal issues, only state issues in the suit so it cannot be appealed to the SC
Link to tweet
And heres the best part: The PA Supreme Courts decision rests on whats called an adequate and independent state procedural ground, which the US Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review. So its totally and irrevocably final.
Ms. Toad
(34,072 posts)So even though - theoretically - there is an independent and adequate state ground for the PA case, the attorneys in that case could ask the court to hear it.
I'm confident (as is every attorney I've spoken with) that - under the circumstances that now exist - this election will not end up in the Supreme Court.
(Prior to the electoral vote being clear, several of us were not so confident.)
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)But I would have never guessed that they would hear Bush v. Gore, either, yet they did.
Its a fools errand predicting what any Court will do, but the point of the OP is well-taken. Next time, they might let fascism win. Its knocking on the door ... loudly.
-Laelth
mvd
(65,173 posts)Even if say justices like Alito, Thomas, and Barrett wanted to steal the election for Trump, I dont think Roberts would allow it. He would shut the talk down.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)The OPs salient point is that we remain very vulnerable to fascism going forward from here.
-Laelth
Hopefully we get enough of a Senate majority in 2022 to cancel out Democrats who dont want Supreme Court reform.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,923 posts)Then there isn't anything Roberts can do to stop it from being heard. It only takes 4 votes to grant cert.
mvd
(65,173 posts)I dont feel it will even come to that, though.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)To decide the election. This is not like Florida at all.
One of them might crawl its way to the SC, but I don't see it.
greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)There will never be another election in this country, nothing Nick Danger says will matter a bit, and most people posting on this board will be murdered by Trump militias within the next three years.
It's really not worthwhile imagining such a thing, to be honest.
PCIntern
(25,544 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)Faulty premise.
greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)That's the point - and only point - of the OP.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)the end of the world/ burn in hell crap from the fucking Xians.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)This is just more fear-mongering.
ecstatic
(32,704 posts)republican party. Just waiting to see if they'll uphold the law or not.
It looks like they will, this time, but it should be obvious to everyone that they would have gone along with a coup if tRump had been a more capable, competent and qualified republican president.
Doodley
(9,091 posts)unblock
(52,227 posts)That time, the Supreme Court only had to make a single indefensible decision in the name of political corruption. That they could do.
This time, they would have to overturn three separate state results, which would mean three indefensible decisions.
That's a bridge too far. Actually, two bridges too far.
magicarpet
(14,150 posts)... the next AmeriKKKan Fascist might be much less cray-kray,... then we will be royally fucked.
JI7
(89,249 posts)Frasier Balzov
(2,647 posts)How is it different from SCOTUS deciding the scope and limits of rights and protections in every other area of our lives?
Conservatives seem to view SCOTUS itself as inherently tyrannical.
brettdale
(12,381 posts)They will rule in Biden's favor and he will become President.
Sad thing is though, it might not be 9-0 as it should be.
brettdale
(12,381 posts)This week??, next week???
Alex4Martinez
(2,193 posts)Obviously, they can't be trusted.
We need the Senate, then we need to add seats to the court.
Joe Manchin has already said he would not vote to change the Senate rules. So we will have to wait until 2022 and hope we pick up a couple of additional Senate seats to change the rules for expanding Scotus.
fearnobush
(3,960 posts)Regardless of its bias in the decision, SCOTUS determined that FSC violated equal protection by granting each country its own method for determining what a vote or a non vote was based on faulty punch cards thus setting a no equitable Statewide standard and that Florida law regarding the lack of standard was too a violation of equal protection clause.
The PA case is vastly different since there is a statewide standard in place. The Trump idiots are arguing because some counties choose the have votes cured while others did not. The law set the standard as to allow the counties to choose if they wanted to cure or not to cure since many counties lack the resources to that in time for Election Day.
Florida set no choice or even method of counting or curing ballots. Essentially it was county free for all in deciding what counted and scotus jumped all over that.
DEM1955
(21 posts)SCOTUS will rule in Biden's favor because lack of evidence. Calm down and breathe.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)...but, until they do, it's still uncertain. And, which was my main point, unless we manage to reform our judicial system, the odds are that, eventually, a partisan Court will find a way to overturn a clear-cut election result such as the one we have right now.
Rice4VP
(1,235 posts)have to do is let the clock run out for two weeks. The election isnt close, why would they need to decide anything?
tavernier
(12,388 posts)if the loser insists on refusing all the rulings and just keeps appealing.
CaptainTruth
(6,591 posts)brooklynite
(94,560 posts)By that measure, every Court decided the Election simply by doing its job.
The bottom line is that the SC wont take the case because there isnt a case to take; just like they reject hundreds of cases - having nothing to do with elections - every year.
Turin_C3PO
(13,991 posts)disalitervisum
(470 posts)LOL how long have you all been living in this country?
Obviously, they can do whatever they want to.
Septua
(2,256 posts)30+ suits filed and dismissed or ruled against because of NO evidence, beyond some number of "signed affidavits", Lara Trump saying the outcome doesn't "feel right", Rudy saying the "numbers don't add up" AND Trump saying Joe couldn't have gotten 80M votes because he didn't draw a big crowd at his rallies...WTF?
But the most obvious flaw in Trump's strategy is the simple fact everyone including Trump, knows the election wasn't rigged. The only fraudulent aspect surrounding this election is TRUMP. He said way back, he could only lose if the election was rigged. He lost, therefore, the election was rigged...
Baclava
(12,047 posts)It's over, he lost, STATES RIGHTS! lolololol
onenote
(42,702 posts)from states representing at least 36 electoral college votes where the number of votes at issue would be enough to overturn the results in that particular state.
So far, the only case on track to the Supreme Court is from Pennsylvania.
Gothmog
(145,231 posts)kskiska
(27,045 posts)it was explicitely said that the case was not to be used as a precedent. I guess that remains to be seen.
Bradshaw3
(7,522 posts)Maybe in the future the "drumpf-is-all-powerful-and-will-destroy-the-world" folks will spawn a new movement like the anti-vaxxers in which reason and facts can't permeate their worldview.
budkin
(6,703 posts)They wont be taking the case BECAUSE they wont be deciding the election.